5% of the Population is Gay...Will Gay People ever stop pushing their Agenda?

Darth_Prime
reply to post by spiritspeak

 

what do you mean "Defending what is default"?

out of curiosity

I don't think it's right to think in terms of attacking and defending sexual orientation, I don't intent to discuss the subject like winning and losing. I'm certainly not referring to anything else like skin color, religion or anything those are different subjects.

reply to post by spiritspeak


Well, it should never be "Attack and Defend" but that is how the majority of people look at it, it is one thing to disagree and follow your belief, it is another to attack someone. i am Not saying you attacked me or anyone, i am generalizing

i'll agree, it should not be a "Gay Right" or a "Black Right" or any other "X Right" because at it's core they are all "Human Rights" the colour of ones skin doesn't make them less of a Human, likewise my sexuality doesn't make me less of a Human, and your Religion doesn't make you less of a Human. anytime someone is being discriminated because of "X" it's a Human Right issue, be it Race or Sexuality.

reply to post by StarlightNine

“Ollie, I do understand the statistics, and don't argue them. But heterosexuals are not only quite promiscuous themselves, but also have high incidences of STD. Promiscuity is hardly exclusive to homosexual people. You at least recognize this.”

Yyyyyeeeesss, Starlight, I recognize this but are you recognizing the staggering height of homosexual male cases of Syphilis? I don’t think you are or did you ever look at the report that Peter Vlar posted for me? Yes, there is an increasing rate of STDs/syphilis among hetero men but the number of men AND, I’m assuming here, ALL women are only 28% of the total. The other 72% is MSM – which, as I think you either pointed out or alluded to, doesn’t exactly mean they’re all homosexual. I doubt there’s going to be many hetero men out there claiming to be homosexual, however.

“Yes, Ollie. He was tolerant. So tolerant, he was hated for it. They feared him. They could never understand it. He could feel anger, from what we are told. But his anger was not directed at those with a pure heart, but those who did not practice love, compassion, and tolerance. It is plainly clear in the scriptures.

Aw, geeze…. Where do ya start? Sorry, Starlight, God bless ya, you’re reading exactly what you want to into the scriptures and completely discounting others. Did He not tell the harlot, adulteress, whatever name your Bible version you’re using calls her, to go out and SIN NO MORE? If they accounted for every person that came to Him in every town He visited one gospel would take up enough space to fill the whole current content of canonized pages so they made representative examples of certain instances.

Yeshua was tolerant of sinners in that He chose to eat and associate with them. If you’re getting your angle from something like Mark 2:13 through 17 then yes, He was free to associate with anyone He chose. As it states in the last verse “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” This from the NIV online. Did He not come to HEAL the sick?? If you’re SICK you need to have something changed …. Riiiiight?

I do have a bit of contention with the fact that Paul wanted to exclude homosexuals from the worship service if not churches altogether but you have to look at things from a first century perspective, too. They didn’t have the means to assess and deal with things on a psychological manner so this exclusion was made to keep the rest of the members from being affected by it. Homosexuality deals with a very vulnerable part of the human psyche.

Everything was done in a rather brutal fashion back then. Life was rough and messy. We have a lot more words, much kinder than have been held up by Darth, you and others, that describe the mindset of just about every twist and turn a human mind can take now days. People, in general – and it’s VERY general - also realize there’s a board in just about everyone’s eye now days. You can’t get a kid enrolled in school today without them being labeled as SOMETHING or another, can you? After 15 years in the school system, believe me when I say – there’s something wrong with everybody! Or, as it states in Romans 3:10, which refers back to an OT verse, “there is none righteous, no, not one”.

I would like to see one direct thing Christ wrote in the Bible.

Well, until they dig up something that CAN be directly attributed to Christ writing something (and, believe me, this is something I've always wondered about) all we have is pretty much third party writings. So, as I said before, if you want to go off and pick and choose what you want to believe or even sit down and write your own Bible, have at it. You won't be the first one to try it!

Chapter and verse Starlight. If you want to talk about it in light of this subject let's do it but quote me the lines.

reply to post by Ollie769


And all this is, of course, legitimate grounds for denying homosexual couples the same privileges afforded to heterosexual couples? You want the government to discriminate in your favor?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


It’s merely my personal opinion, certainly not that of everyone, but if you’ve formed a monogamous, life-long relationship with a same-sex partner then it’s a STEP in the right direction. What I’ve been concerned with throughout all of my posts has been the activities of – primarily – male homosexuals that can’t help but bed-hop and spread the diseases that the Bible’s authors have tried to protect us from since Genesis. I say this purely from a public health standpoint and, again, it’s why I have fewer problems with lesbians. They just do it naturally as opposed to men, hence their considerably lower rate of STDs.

One thing I’d like to know is what ever happened to the dialogue about the “Marriage Penalty”?? Don’t you, usually, wind up paying more as a married couple in taxes? I’m honestly not sure after being married for 35 years. But, beyond that, I’m also of the opinion that, in regard to inheritance, a person ought to be able to leave whatever they damned well please to anyone they damned well please if the taxes have already been paid on said inheritance! That ought to cover both straight and same-sex couples, married or not.

The idea of penalizing people that opt for non-traditional unions, though, is and always has been a means of legislating morality. As long as the legislation protects the people from actual health hazards such as tainted blood supplies, crime and disease infested bordellos like the San Francisco bath houses and such, sure, I’m all for that.

But, here’s the rub. One of the things the Bible is is an ancient, but crude, psychology book. What works in the long run, and the long run is what the Bible is all about, is heterosexual, monogamous, life-long unions. As I said a couple of posts back homosexuality is a dead-end street. It also is true that it has a strong self-centeredness component to it. It is one thing, and a good one, to bind one’s self to another so that you can both make each other happy but, if you ever ask a psychologist that is willing to be honest with you, while there are many things that coalesce to produce a homosexual one thing is a strong self-centered interest.

It’s one thing for a guy to be attracted to and marry the prettiest girl in the class, and vice-versa, but the transformation a person’s mind makes through years and years of heterosexual marriage is getting away from the male-centric and female-centric modes of thinking. God is neither male nor female. Besides producing children a successful hetero- marriage hones and polishes one’s spirit, if you believe in such, to a very fine point. Again, as I said in a previous post, the lessons, laws and concepts the Bible embodies, while horribly mishandled many times throughout history, lead those that will listen and, in turn, humanity in general up out of the animalistic existence we came from. Sodom and Gomorrah were pretty miserable places, trust me! It required thought, it requires study to get your head wrapped around the Bible and often a lifetime of it but that seems to be the last thing anyone in this world wants, especially since knee-jerk emotional decisions are what make the business world go ‘round.

But this isn’t by any stretch of the imagination to say that you can just flip a switch in your head and turn straight if you aren’t. It’s a whole lot more complicated than that. The most important thing is to know that it can be done but it’s not without its perils. You’re dealing with the highly complicated human brain, after all.

Ollie769
reply to post by StarlightNine

 

“Ollie, I do understand the statistics, and don't argue them. But heterosexuals are not only quite promiscuous themselves, but also have high incidences of STD. Promiscuity is hardly exclusive to homosexual people. You at least recognize this.”

Yyyyyeeeesss, Starlight, I recognize this but are you recognizing the staggering height of homosexual male cases of Syphilis? I don’t think you are or did you ever look at the report that Peter Vlar posted for me? Yes, there is an increasing rate of STDs/syphilis among hetero men but the number of men AND, I’m assuming here, ALL women are only 28% of the total. The other 72% is MSM – which, as I think you either pointed out or alluded to, doesn’t exactly mean they’re all homosexual. I doubt there’s going to be many hetero men out there claiming to be homosexual, however.

“Yes, Ollie. He was tolerant. So tolerant, he was hated for it. They feared him. They could never understand it. He could feel anger, from what we are told. But his anger was not directed at those with a pure heart, but those who did not practice love, compassion, and tolerance. It is plainly clear in the scriptures.

Aw, geeze…. Where do ya start? Sorry, Starlight, God bless ya, you’re reading exactly what you want to into the scriptures and completely discounting others. Did He not tell the harlot, adulteress, whatever name your Bible version you’re using calls her, to go out and SIN NO MORE? If they accounted for every person that came to Him in every town He visited one gospel would take up enough space to fill the whole current content of canonized pages so they made representative examples of certain instances.

Yeshua was tolerant of sinners in that He chose to eat and associate with them. If you’re getting your angle from something like Mark 2:13 through 17 then yes, He was free to associate with anyone He chose. As it states in the last verse “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” This from the NIV online. Did He not come to HEAL the sick?? If you’re SICK you need to have something changed …. Riiiiight?

I do have a bit of contention with the fact that Paul wanted to exclude homosexuals from the worship service if not churches altogether but you have to look at things from a first century perspective, too. They didn’t have the means to assess and deal with things on a psychological manner so this exclusion was made to keep the rest of the members from being affected by it. Homosexuality deals with a very vulnerable part of the human psyche.

Everything was done in a rather brutal fashion back then. Life was rough and messy. We have a lot more words, much kinder than have been held up by Darth, you and others, that describe the mindset of just about every twist and turn a human mind can take now days. People, in general – and it’s VERY general - also realize there’s a board in just about everyone’s eye now days. You can’t get a kid enrolled in school today without them being labeled as SOMETHING or another, can you? After 15 years in the school system, believe me when I say – there’s something wrong with everybody! Or, as it states in Romans 3:10, which refers back to an OT verse, “there is none righteous, no, not one”.

I would like to see one direct thing Christ wrote in the Bible.

Well, until they dig up something that CAN be directly attributed to Christ writing something (and, believe me, this is something I've always wondered about) all we have is pretty much third party writings. So, as I said before, if you want to go off and pick and choose what you want to believe or even sit down and write your own Bible, have at it. You won't be the first one to try it!

Chapter and verse Starlight. If you want to talk about it in light of this subject let's do it but quote me the lines.

Hey, Ollie.
I didn't see your response to me earlier.


You said:

Aw, geeze…. Where do ya start? Sorry, Starlight, God bless ya, you’re reading exactly what you want to into the scriptures and completely discounting others.

But isn't this exactly what many Christians do, when they attempt to argue their stance on sin, wrong/right, and most especially homosexuality?

One cannot fully comprehend anything, least of all Holy text, if they do not keep it in context as a whole. Not finding one sentence that serves, and disregard all other text in full context. Yes, we use certain lines of texts to make points, but always keep those lines in context to the whole.


You said:

Did He not tell the harlot, adulteress, whatever name your Bible version you’re using calls her, to go out and SIN NO MORE?

Maybe that's the problem? Too many "versions" of the Bible being interpreted.
There is only one volume. Whether it be King James version or New International Version.

Yes, he said, (loosely) go forth, and no longer harm your soul with things that do not serve you well. Things which have caused you pain and suffering. The word "sin" is what is being so mangled.

Also, I am of the opinion that Christ cared more for a person's soul happiness, than he cared about what society deemed was appropriate. He wanted them to be at peace in their soul. Not at peace with what the world was telling them was peaceful. Each man must make right their own soul. Society and other men have no say in the matter of another's soul, and neither have they the right to worry over it.

Proselytizing was meant to be done for the select few who understood fully and without bias, Christ's teachings. Not the masses who have neither been able to fully comprehend them, and who by default, always shout what they choose to shout as gospel and disregard the essence of the entire teachings of Christ.


You said:

Yeshua was tolerant of sinners in that He chose to eat and associate with them.

Not only that. He chose to associate with them. He chose to love them. Love them more because they were flawed. As all humans are. He chose to love them because his teachings and the essence of his soul was about one thing and one thing only - love.
He loved the sinner as he loved the righteous. It is all there in black and white. Or perhaps in some cases, a muddy grey. Did he not say (apparently) "Let those who have ears hear. Let those who have eyes see." ?
He was saying, in my own opinion, that not everyone will hear and see properly the teachings and meanings. But those who are meant to hear and see them, will.


You said:

If you’re getting your angle from something like Mark 2:13 through 17 then yes, He was free to associate with anyone He chose. As it states in the last verse “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” This from the NIV online. Did He not come to HEAL the sick?? If you’re SICK you need to have something changed …. Riiiiight?

My 'angle' comes only from many years of study and personal seeking. Not only of Christianity but from all religions, all beliefs and texts. If we were Christ or anything near as Holy, we might then see into the essence of a person's soul. Therefore, we may see what is not available to us on the surface. However, we are not such as he, and do not know such things. However can we then, claim anyone a sinner? However can we claim to know who is and who is not? By what the church and these third party scribes have told us is sin is how.
It is not the teachings of Christ which is telling us who is the sinner. It is the teachings of man, and the church. Please do read what he spoke of in the letters to all the churches.
You will know which verses I speak of.

Have you ever read Oxyrhynchus Papyri or Nag Hamadi? There has been so much that has been suppressed by the church and man. Why? Because it has not served their agenda to have it revealed.

These admonitions from Coptic Gospel of Thomas are useful to the context of what we speak of here:

25) Jesus said, "Love your brother like your soul, guard him
like the pupil of your eye."

66) Jesus said, "Show me the stone which the builders have
rejected. That one is the cornerstone."

So do not make anyone an outcast. Because it is not your place to do so, Ollie. That's the bottom line of what I mean. When someone casts out another because they choose to become Christ, how do you think Christ will deal with them? It is something to ponder perhaps.


You said:

Chapter and verse Starlight. If you want to talk about it in light of this subject let's do it but quote me the lines.

I don't like quoting the Bible. As for the main reason, I don't rely on it for the "truth."
I in no way discount it. Simply that it matters not if I quote verse, but that I understand it.
Anyone knowing the teachings of Christ can easily find reference without verse and chapter given. Because one knows chapter and verse, and even page number where it sits in Bible text, doesn't mean they understand it. Therefore it matters little in light of making homosexual people sinners and outcasts in the world.

Don't you think, Ollie?

I mean... homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of some men, yes. Murder is also seen as a sin in the eyes of some men. Some, because if everyone thought it was a sin, no one would be murdering. Silly to say it this way perhaps, but true nonetheless.
One simply cannot be Christ. I think he would be furious to be so impersonated.

We all came from one source. Every human born, lived, died. Every single one.
When the body is done, and our experience here over, wherever shall we return to? Back to the source. The one and only source of all living thing. Whether you are gay, straight, black or white, hitler or Mother Theresa.
Oh yes, I said it. Because I believe it. There is only one place to go when you are done here.

Homosexuality is not the sin, Ollie.
The sin is when man, dictates to another soul in Christlike fashion, when they are not Christ, and have no comprehension of Christ-mind, Christ-spirit. The sin is making any human being an outcast or scapegoat for a personal agenda.

reply to post by Ollie769


Heterosexuals carry and spread just as many venereal diseases as homosexuals - possibly even more, given that they are encouraged to participate in such activities, contrary to the stigma attached to homosexuality.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Back to the CDC report Peter Vlar posted for me on page 13 of this thread. What you're saying just ain't the case.

AIDS has long been known as the "Gay Sickness" and attached the "Taboo Subject" i think the percentages get a bit contorted as there are less Homosexuals than Heterosexuals.

there is no denying the safety and precautions against AIDS within the LGBT community, though, MRSA has killed more people than AIDS as reported a couple years a go and yet MRSA doesn't get talked about as much, or as deadly as the "Gay Aids"

it also depends on who gets reported into the percentages, heterosexual Drug Addicts? Homeless? there are various ways to contract it, though Anal sex is obvious a huge risk without proper protection. but again people are scared to admit they may have HIV/aids due to the attachments to it. with proper education, and ways for people to afford it, and alternative treatments i believe it may decrease

Darth_Prime
AIDS has long been known as the "Gay Sickness" and attached the "Taboo Subject" i think the percentages get a bit contorted as there are less Homosexuals than Heterosexuals.

there is no denying the safety and precautions against AIDS within the LGBT community, though, MRSA has killed more people than AIDS as reported a couple years a go and yet MRSA doesn't get talked about as much, or as deadly as the "Gay Aids"

it also depends on who gets reported into the percentages, heterosexual Drug Addicts? Homeless? there are various ways to contract it, though Anal sex is obvious a huge risk without proper protection. but again people are scared to admit they may have HIV/aids due to the attachments to it. with proper education, and ways for people to afford it, and alternative treatments i believe it may decrease

Chile, please. You know that no one wants to hear about IV drug abusers, or hetero promiscuity stats. It's about the gays. The gays are going to smile at you, and you are going to get AIDS. Mark my word. They are just going to kill off the whole human species, they will.


The horrific way people used to die of AIDS. All alone, without love and the human touch. Because people didn't know you couldn't get it by stroking someone's hair or forehead. By holding their hand. So much loneliness in dying. That is what has always been heartbreaking.
Now, when we know so much more, we still want to call it specifically a "gay" disease. How is this possible, with so much hetero contraction.

I don't know. People need to....

Ollie769
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Back to the CDC report Peter Vlar posted for me on page 13 of this thread. What you're saying just ain't the case.

I knew I should have rethought posting that data because now I'm being thrown under the bus like i support your position. Additionally if you read through all the data, only syphillis was linked specifically to male on male anal sex. The rest of the data actually refers to heterosexual women. You're also using one slightly skewed interpretation of the data. Give me some time and ill pull up some additional data that gives a slightly different picture than the one you are trying to paint. Because let's be realistic, its not the sexual activity of gay men that is in and if itself dangerous its the lack of safe sex that makes it dangerous. I can say with a fair amount of certainty that compared to most gay men I've met, my grandfather as a married, irish catholic businessman in the 50's and 60's was far more promiscuous and exposed my grandmother to more disease.

Darth_Prime
reply to post by spiritspeak

 

Well, it should never be "Attack and Defend" but that is how the majority of people look at it, it is one thing to disagree and follow your belief, it is another to attack someone. i am Not saying you attacked me or anyone, i am generalizing

i'll agree, it should not be a "Gay Right" or a "Black Right" or any other "X Right" because at it's core they are all "Human Rights" the colour of ones skin doesn't make them less of a Human, likewise my sexuality doesn't make me less of a Human, and your Religion doesn't make you less of a Human. anytime someone is being discriminated because of "X" it's a Human Right issue, be it Race or Sexuality.

Glad I can talk to you without getting called a bigot or anything negative, nobody needs to be put down for anything, religion, race or sexuality or what one believes. As long as people keep it to themselves or don't demand of others accepting any other kind of love when they don't want to. That is the problem for most people I think, the dualistic right/wrong, to disagree without sounding like it's wrong and one goes to hell or is a bad person.

Personally I believe IT and automation and all the coming changes are much more important to discuss and after we all got robots to do the work for us then I doubt anyone would want to argue that much about LGBT since the economic aspect would be a lot less present. But that is something which will take decades.

You are right in religions rights, maybe I should start a CIHBJ (Christian, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhist, Judaism etc) movement so they could declassify certain illnesses just like they did for the LGBT cause back in 73, but that is offtopic.

reply to post by peter vlar


Oh and my grandfather, too. He immigrated from Greece through Ellis Is. (yes, he was "legal"). I've heard more than a few stories about my grandmother giving him his "comeuppance" over the years. The 50s were an interesting time to be alive. Eventually he cleaned up his act, a friend got him into "AA" and he became the loving and quirky grandfather I came to know him as. If it weren't for my Cajun grandmother's grit and determination she would have given up on him and I would have been dealing with a broken family by the time I came along.

As Darth and Starlight have said AIDS is known as a "Gay disease" but I honestly think that is old news. Even out here in West Texas it's obvious to everyone that HIV/AIDS doesn't care how you catch it. It's been some years ago that I read anything about the situation in Africa but the social customs that prevail there have spread AIDS far and wide in very serious proportions - and most of that sex is, I'm assuming here, heterosexual. What's important to understand here is that the CDC information is reporting the STDs spread within the U.S. and under different cultural circumstances.

Peter if people attack you for telling the truth there's never anything to be ashamed of. DENY IGNORANCE!

reply to post by StarlightNine

(Paraphrasing here) Love, love, love, love, love aaaaaaaannnnd love. "Let those who have ears hear. Let those who have eyes see." ?

He also said "there are none so blind as those who would not see". Yep, it's pretty easy to see where you're coming from here Starlight. I get the distinct feeling you're 'way too young to be a holdover from the 60s. Perhaps a progeny a la "Dharma and Greg"? It's American television, don't know if you ever got it over there. It was one of my favorite shows for a long time.

I went off and prepared a line-by-line reply to your post but after thinking about it I came to the conclusion we'd be wandering 'way off topic and the mods wouldn't appreciate that at all.

Suffice it to say, Starlight, what you're proposing, and obviously living, is spiritual and personal anarchy. If you've wandered through all of those ancient writings to the point you can't define what is "off the mark" and encourage others to follow you into that wilderness then I'll send up a prayer for you ... for what it's worth. Thank God the Inquisition ended a while back.

You do bring out the picture of the world that the early Catholic church faced when they chose the books to canonize in the Bible over time. Unfortunately they didn't have the sense of historical importance we attribute to those writings now. If the prophecy of this being the last pope is true I wait with mixed anticipation and anxiety for the Vatican to completely fall apart and, in the ensuing melee say to the world "Oh, by the way, we've been hanging on to these writings for the past 1800 years but just didn't have the time to translate them so here ya go, have fun with them!"

The Gospel of Thomas, while interesting, is a - just barely - Cliff's Notes compilation of sayings and phrases from all across the ancient world turned around and attributed to Yeshua. I was wondering what your impression of the last "saying" in the list is? The one where Yeshua supposedly says to Peter "See, I will draw her (Mary M.) so as to make her male so that she may also become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven." I feel that He was simply placating Peter who was a typical misogynist of his time but Yeshua didn't seem to ever cut anyone any slack. The quote comes from page 234 of "The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics" by Jean Doresse.

As I've said or alluded to in previous posts the scriptures that have been handed down in canonized form are the boundaries that keep us moving in one general direction. I may be a Libertarian on a lot of things but I'm no anarchist. If you've been dealt a set of cards that seem to dictate a certain way of life, a certain lifestyle, then, once again, I say there's no one that should be able to tell you how to live your life. By the same token there should be no one that will save you from the consequences of that life if it's unsustainable in terms of furthering the human race to a higher existence. One must not only accept the consequences of their decisions, they must also have the free will to do so.

Ollie769
reply to post by StarlightNine

 

(Paraphrasing here) Love, love, love, love, love aaaaaaaannnnd love. "Let those who have ears hear. Let those who have eyes see." ?

He also said "there are none so blind as those who would not see". Yep, it's pretty easy to see where you're coming from here Starlight. I get the distinct feeling you're 'way too young to be a holdover from the 60s. Perhaps a progeny a la "Dharma and Greg"? It's American television, don't know if you ever got it over there. It was one of my favorite shows for a long time.

I went off and prepared a line-by-line reply to your post but after thinking about it I came to the conclusion we'd be wandering 'way off topic and the mods wouldn't appreciate that at all.

Suffice it to say, Starlight, what you're proposing, and obviously living, is spiritual and personal anarchy. If you've wandered through all of those ancient writings to the point you can't define what is "off the mark" and encourage others to follow you into that wilderness then I'll send up a prayer for you ... for what it's worth. Thank God the Inquisition ended a while back.

You do bring out the picture of the world that the early Catholic church faced when they chose the books to canonize in the Bible over time. Unfortunately they didn't have the sense of historical importance we attribute to those writings now. If the prophecy of this being the last pope is true I wait with mixed anticipation and anxiety for the Vatican to completely fall apart and, in the ensuing melee say to the world "Oh, by the way, we've been hanging on to these writings for the past 1800 years but just didn't have the time to translate them so here ya go, have fun with them!"

The Gospel of Thomas, while interesting, is a - just barely - Cliff's Notes compilation of sayings and phrases from all across the ancient world turned around and attributed to Yeshua. I was wondering what your impression of the last "saying" in the list is? The one where Yeshua supposedly says to Peter "See, I will draw her (Mary M.) so as to make her male so that she may also become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven." I feel that He was simply placating Peter who was a typical misogynist of his time but Yeshua didn't seem to ever cut anyone any slack. The quote comes from page 234 of "The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics" by Jean Doresse.

As I've said or alluded to in previous posts the scriptures that have been handed down in canonized form are the boundaries that keep us moving in one general direction. I may be a Libertarian on a lot of things but I'm no anarchist. If you've been dealt a set of cards that seem to dictate a certain way of life, a certain lifestyle, then, once again, I say there's no one that should be able to tell you how to live your life. By the same token there should be no one that will save you from the consequences of that life if it's unsustainable in terms of furthering the human race to a higher existence. One must not only accept the consequences of their decisions, they must also have the free will to do so.

Hey, Ollie,

Well I originally responded to all of this, to figure out why you or anyone else in this age of so called enlightenment and empowerment of free thinking, would ever consider homosexuality a sin because a text that men have written, have told you so.

Not to discuss religious beliefs. It appears we do so more deeply each time we respond to one another.
I respect your beliefs most certainly. I do not have to believe the same things you believe, to understand and respect them. It is simply that we have led different lives and experiences. And you would be quite surprised to know how old I am. I hope that nothing I have said has come across as childish in any way. I have spent almost half of my life thus far in isolation and study. Therefore, I had thought I had something of value to offer to the point.

But one can never change another's belief system, and if a person finds merit or value in something that opposes his belief system, he is able to incorporate it into his own.
However for me, like I am sure it is for you, I have already formed my beliefs. There is always something new, each day, to learn and study. But the bulk of my beliefs have been set in stone, and cannot be moved.

I know the television show Dharma and Greg. I am you see, an All American girl. Born and raised. Daughter to a long line of American Veterans. I always will be an American girl. I just happen to be outside of the United States at this time. It is quite refreshing, I assure you.


I have never been called an Anarchist. Not in my whole life!
I am so honored and thrilled at this moment. You cannot even imagine. I'd give you a little hug for saying that if I could.
Now I know how Dylan felt in the back of the car, when Grossman told him he was being called an Anarchist in the papers. Sweet.



You said:

I was wondering what your impression of the last "saying" in the list is? The one where Yeshua supposedly says to Peter "See, I will draw her (Mary M.) so as to make her male so that she may also become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

What is my impression on it? You mean as a woman?
All human beings are both male AND female. Even the big hairy cavemen with high levels of adrenaline and testosterone.
They may be afraid of their feminine half, deny it, fight it, and lash out at others because they can't make peace with it. But yes, they have feminine aspects to their soul too.
So, I guess it is safe to say, that although born in gender a woman, I too have a male aspect to my soul. You see, souls are androgynous. They are neither male nor female.
They are neither, and both, at the same time.

Mary Magdalene was Jesus' most beloved. It is posited by some scholars as you know, that she may have actually been his wife. We, will never know the truth of it.
But she was his most beloved disciple, and all others were extremely jealous. So jealous of her that they meant her harm. Therefore, Jesus meant to placate their dimmed wits. Show them the idiocy of their jealousy. To make her a male, would be to make her equal to them. Not better. And were they not placated?

But we run away with it here. I no more want to discuss personal religious or spiritual beliefs than I want to stand in front of a freight train. If the religious discussion returns to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, then the direction is regained, and there is something to discuss.

Otherwise, there is no winner, no right or wrong when one speaks of personal beliefs.

I simply do not believe, and never will, that homosexuality is a sin.
I don't think Christ sees it that way, and I'm pretty sure God Himself is waiting for everyone.

Even the boys who put their tongues in other boys' mouths.

But then.... one will never truly know the mind or essence of omnipotence.
In fact, this is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. It is only a test.

whyamIhere
This has been bugging me for quite awhile.

I get it. Some people are Gay. I really am happy you can be with who you want.

But, quit shoving it down our throats. You are 5% of the population.

How many gay people are there in the United States? The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, a sexual orientation law and public policy think tank, estimates that 9 million (about 3.8%) of Americans identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (2011). The institute also found that bisexuals make up 1.8% of the population, while 1.7% are gay or lesbian. Transgender adults make up 0.3% of the population.

I have always loved my Gay Friends. They are not militant. But this whole LGBT?

Live your life. Why live your life constantly being identified by your sexuality?

I am not speaking about all Gay people. Just the small army of militant Gays.

Stop it......End Rant.
Www.gaylife.about.com

They will always be a minority and like any minority that is facing prejudice, they need to grow up and stop pushing their nasty life style on us. I'm asexual and it is bad enough that the world revolves around sexuality. This gay stuff really tips the scales to the point of bringing me to hating them. Even in online media they are pushing man hugs and gay scenes into just about everything out there. What happened to family values with a mom and a dad? No wonder the United States is falling apart like masonry in the 1906 Quake. Put those fags back in the closet, or just keep their sex lives out of the media. Yeah I get it, some people are gay and I have no problem as long as they are not out to brag about how many guys they laid in bed. I've been to enough bars to know that straights aren't bragging about how many women they bed and I expect the same respect from gays too. It is much easier to tolerate gaydom if it was just a bedroom thing and not a front page thing. For the gays that are reading this, keep your escapades to yourself and leave us homosexually challenged males in the closet about what happens in a gay man's bedroom, because I sure as hell don't want to know about it.

reply to post by ramle


Your tone seems rather pointed right now.

Why is it okay to push the "Heterosexual Agenda"? promoting diversity is a good thing. how many people are talking about their Sex life? i mean, how many of us horrid Fags are talking about our sex life in the Media?


are you talking about the "Reality shows" that are basically one big Heterosexual Orgy?? where they are promoting sleeping with cast members they just met? or the Rock 'N Roll/ Hip Hop lifestyle where you sleep around, or adolescents twerking?

i mean it is quite easy to make distasteful comments, but can you back them up? or are they baseless remarks that have no real merit?

reply to post by StarlightNine

I am so honored and thrilled at this moment…

Hey! This is so great! Writing has always been a “thing” with me and being able to stir someone in a positive manner is a great feeling – especially when it comes as a surprise! 95+% of what I put up here on ATS seems to fall on deaf ears so this is great for me. Thank you!

I do, whether those reading this believe it or not, believe it takes all kinds to make a world. I’m guessing you are a person who is quite comfortable with no boundaries while I relish and see the need for at least some to keep the rest of us safe through life. Like I said to Darth earlier, the Bible is full of rules to get you to that great old age so you can look back and say “what the Hell was I thinking?”

As far as “a text that men have written” being completely discounted there is some common ground we can find there, I’m sure. As an example the whole “Heaven and Hell” concept seems to be something else the early Catholic Empire folded into its system of beliefs from Paganism since when you query a search engine with “Jews don’t believe in Hell” you get articles like
this. Fear was, and still is, the primary means of controlling people and when you’re trying to create – and keep – an empire in the old world without a huge and expensive army to corral them superstition is a great ally.

But there is a deeper reason for Paul’s suggested rules and regulations for running the early churches that I think I’ve outlined in previous posts which go beyond simple reverse quarantining. When you have no means of curing infections and you have a pretty good suspicion on where they are and what causes them then the only thing you can do is avoid them at all costs. But the concept of being spiritually bound to any and every person you have sex with presents a problem to this religion.

Regarding my question about the last saying in Thomas – I was, indeed, interested in your take on it but it was also a test, you see. The last time I made a 50/50 guess as to a member’s gender I was talking with I did the usual and guessed wrong. I’ve always had the feeling, with you, that I was talking to a woman but wanted to make sure. Your avatar doesn’t specify but everything you’ve said up to now seems to have indicated it.

I have enjoyed these back-and-forths with you, Darth and others. The reason I persevered is because there really IS NO HONEST DISCOURSE on this subject and, as the OP has suggested, the media is forcing it on us by fiat most of the time in a very one-sided manner. The more you and Darth opened up about things the more I understood where you’re coming from as I did with those family and friends that are/were homosexual.

People need to know the reason for the stands they take on both sides of this human condition but, due to this lack of discussion, it always breaks down to name calling in which nothing is accomplished. Being homosexual needs to be understood better by the general public on a more clinical level that come from scientific inquiry rather than popular beliefs. But this is ONLY if the research is honest and not completely influenced by the plague of political correctness. Since the takeover of the American Psychological Association in the 70s by blatantly pro-homosexual elements this has not been the case. I’m not an adherent to the, I’m pretty sure, now disproven “gay gene” theory but I think genes do play some role. And, who knows, perhaps even previous lives as well! But that’s another discussion.

Forgive me if this spins the theme of the thread but I was thinking more about this and how this ties into international business. Which had lead me to the question, is the lgbt movement being used to create diversion so that a non-lgbt block of power would emerge? On the site of the lgbt there are companies listed who are pro and against, just as there are countries listed. The non-lgbt companies have billions of assets but so do the lgbt companies (with for example Google). With Sochi going on and I myself looking abroad for business oppertunities I am wondering, it appears so easy for an individual or group to unite several groups and point out who is with them and who is against.

I'm not claiming lgbt are trying to start a world war or economic one but they do confront people with having to make a choice, do I work for a pro-lgbt company or one who is against? All these companies are connected to eachother and do business with another, could something like this lead to companies preferring to do business with anti lgbt only or only the pro ones? And on an international scale, would this lead to the same situation. Might be deserving of a thread of it's own but it can be such a difficult topic for some and I wouldn't just want to start one about the possible issue.

reply to post by spiritspeak

I'm not claiming lgbt are trying to start a world war or economic one but they do confront people with having to make a choice, do I work for a pro-lgbt company or one who is against?

Companies are not generally encouraged to make decisions based on sexual preference. Otherwise, they risk a multimillion lawsuit that could cost them street cred and clientele. Remember the Abercrombie representative who was slammed on the news for broadcasting his prejudice against "ugly" consumers who frequented his retailers? Imagine if he'd been talking about gays. Or blacks. Or women.